Some economy-based historians have the same stunning trait as economists themselves: a cunning ability to predict the past. No matter which historical fact you point at, they will see it as the inevitable result of socioeconomic forces operating beyond control. It is a pity that they are not able to project to the future their capacity to identify hidden economic forces giving shape to the world…

Regrettably, some malevolent critics could be tempted to minimize their feats as…hindsight.

Mehring you have repeatedly missed the point that I've never said it would have happened, I said it was a possibility. I have no doubt FDR was doing everything in his power to get the US into the war. What you fail to understand is that Americans did not want to get involved. They could have cared less about Europe and Asia. You ignored the point that even with a German U-boat sinking a US destroyer, plus two other events that congress still refused to declare war. Americans were determined not to be pulled into WW2 like they had WW1. Only 55% of voters got FDR elected that term and he ran on a promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. If the Republicans had started the impeachment process it would have been bigger then Watergate and the political pressure for either FDR to resign or for him to be impeached would have been immense. He would have lost his base and the other party had no love for him. The Democrats only hope for future elections would have been to distance themselves from it. For you to deny this shows that you don't understand the political dynamics of the time inside the US or you refuse to look at anything that differs from your preset beliefs. Either way it is pointless to continue.

Yes Lend Lease was very valuable, but power is more important to politicians. If FDR had been impeached the average citizen would have been pushing against anything that put us on a path to war and since they vote the only way to get or stay elected would have been to go with it. They remembered the cost of WW1. Even if the only thing congress did was remove the oil embargo, that would have removed the immediate need for the Japanese to attack the US. Which leads right back to if Japan hadn't launched PH the US wasn't going to declare war anytime soon. Remember the initial post is that nobody can say what would have happened because it never did.

Some economy-based historians have the same stunning trait as economists themselves: a cunning ability to predict the past. No matter which historical fact you point at, they will see it as the inevitable result of socioeconomic forces operating beyond control. It is a pity that they are not able to project to the future their capacity to identify hidden economic forces giving shape to the world…

Regrettably, some malevolent critics could be tempted to minimize their feats as…hindsight.

The malevolence of some critics is beyond doubt, as is the prescience of historical materialist analysis.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

Mehring you have repeatedly missed the point that I've never said it would have happened, I said it was a possibility. I have no doubt FDR was doing everything in his power to get the US into the war. What you fail to understand is that Americans did not want to get involved. They could have cared less about Europe and Asia. You ignored the point that even with a German U-boat sinking a US destroyer, plus two other events that congress still refused to declare war. Americans were determined not to be pulled into WW2 like they had WW1. Only 55% of voters got FDR elected that term and he ran on a promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. If the Republicans had started the impeachment process it would have been bigger then Watergate and the political pressure for either FDR to resign or for him to be impeached would have been immense. He would have lost his base and the other party had no love for him. The Democrats only hope for future elections would have been to distance themselves from it. For you to deny this shows that you don't understand the political dynamics of the time inside the US or you refuse to look at anything that differs from your preset beliefs. Either way it is pointless to continue.

Yes Lend Lease was very valuable, but power is more important to politicians. If FDR had been impeached the average citizen would have been pushing against anything that put us on a path to war and since they vote the only way to get or stay elected would have been to go with it. They remembered the cost of WW1. Even if the only thing congress did was remove the oil embargo, that would have removed the immediate need for the Japanese to attack the US. Which leads right back to if Japan hadn't launched PH the US wasn't going to declare war anytime soon. Remember the initial post is that nobody can say what would have happened because it never did.

No, it is you who has completely missed the point. The chances of what you suggest coming about are so small as to be as worthy of inclusion in a wargame as my Hitler's Epiphany mod.

Your assertion that Americans didn't want to get involved and the election percent you quote appears almost disingenuous. Who on earth wants to get involved in a world war after we saw what happened in the first one? It shattered all illusions, for all but a tiny psychotic minority, in the glory of war. The Germans didn't, nor the French or British. There was no cheering in the streets and town squares.

Nevertheless 71% of Americans approved FDRs military conscription bill of September 1940. You point to FDR's re-election with 55 % of the vote as almost a vote of no confidence, yet in US presidential elections that is something of a triumph. No president has achieved such a mandate since Reagan, in 1984. And who is to say that had the Republicans taken power, they would not have dropped their former objections as an opposition, adopted in search of votes rather than on principle, and continued with the exact same line as was dictated to Roosevelt by the global and internal political and economic situation? This is how politics works, yet you say I fail to understand the dynamics of contemporary US politics. I would argue that you fail to understand the dynamics and machinations of any politics of any time.

And neither have I ignored any point about US ships being sunk.

Your distinction between virtual war and war as facile, to say the least. War does not come from nowhere. Sometimes an invasion or declaration of war may seem to come out of the blue but somewhere there is an observable quantitative buildup of tension, perhaps even internally and not overtly involving the victim of agression. The time line I have shown you demonstrates a quantitative increase in belligerence and preparations for war. At what exact point that quantitative increase changes quality, tipping from one state to another, can only be determined absolutely in hindsight, there are too many variables for precision. But the general outline can be determined. It is clear and irefutable and the eventual declaration of war coresponds not only with the quantitative escalation but also the interests of all conflicting parties.

Rather, you have failed to understand my response.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

I think you've both missed the point. This is a thread about WitE sudden death victory conditions. Not one about the entry of the US into the Second World War. You two should get a room, preferably with soundproofing, whips and chains, to play out the rest of this little tete-a-tete...

I think you've both missed the point. This is a thread about WitE sudden death victory conditions. Not one about the entry of the US into the Second World War. You two should get a room, preferably with soundproofing, whips and chains, to play out the rest of this little tete-a-tete...

Precisely. You could take it to the WitP forums, where it would not cause a ripple (mostly because there are at least 10,000 posts on the subject already)

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would. I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked. IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would. I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked. IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

The problem is not (at least to me) that some people want sudden death. The problem is they want it because they affirm the Soviets are doing things when they shouldn't be allowed to do them (basically, let the Red Army be swallowed)... and yet these same persons are doing "things" (which I clearly mentioned) that could have never happened... it's called contradictions. They don't want a part of the cake. They want all the cake (they've said they want the Soviets stand and fight, but haven't said a single word about German limitations).

There's also another problem. When I bought the game I knew there would be some people who would never accept the Germans could not win. I suspect it's somewhat related to russophobia in some cases, or the product of 50 years of Cold War if you prefer: how could these mujiks defeat the mighty panzers, the cream of the cream? This I knew it was inevitable.

As a WitP regular, you know very well this issue (Japan must win) never really appeared (except few, extravagant individuals)

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would. I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked. IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

Fun is the key. The more the better. It's not really fun for me to spend many hours playing a game I have no chance of winning, or conversely that I have an absolute certainty of winning.

Anyone (probably primarily Germans) who are good with sudden death victory conditions for 1941 should have no issue with sudden death victory conditions in spring of 1942. If you are ok with one, but not the other, you need to first take a good long hard look in the mirror, realize you are a fan boy of one side or the other and then seek professional help.